ABDUL LATHEEF THONDIKKADAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the writ petition is against Ext. P3, an order passed by the 2nd respondent exercising his powers under the Indian Telegraph Act.

(2.) IT is stated that the 5th respondent made an application for supply of electrical energy. On the apprehension that the line will be drawn through the properties of the petitioners', objections were raised by them. Thereupon, the 4th respondent moved the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent issued notice to the parties, considered the objections raised and passed Ext. P3 order allowing drawal of the line. Complaining that if line is drawn as allowed by Ext. P3, the same will cause extensive damage to their properties, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. Yet another contention raised is that though an alternate route suggested by them was rejected, no reason whatsoever has been given in the order.

(3.) ALTHOUGH several contentions have been raised in the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, I do not think those contentions need be adverted to for disposal of the writ petition. A reading of ext. P3 shows that though the line is allowed to be drawn through the boundary of the properties of the petitioners, it was to avoid the damages that are certainly going to be caused that the petitioners suggested an alternate route in Ext. P2 objection filed by them. However, the suggestion so made is seen rejected in Ext. P3 stating that the same is not technically feasible or the shortest. No reason whatsoever is seen stated as to why the alternate route suggested by the petitioners is not technically feasible. In my view, the 2nd respondent, who is discharging the statutory duty under the Indian Telegraph act, should have assigned reason when he chose to reject the proposal made by the petitioners. As Ext. P3 does not give any such reason for rejecting alternate route suggested by the petitioners, I cannot uphold Ext. P3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-That Ext. P3 will stand set aside and the matter will be reconsidered by the 2nd respondent with notice to the petitioners and the other parties to the proceedings, and orders shall be passed, duly adverting to the objections raised by the petitioners. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.